DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/28/25 has been acknowledged and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-20, and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 17 and 28; the following formula (1) in lines 4-5 is not clear, the claims provide for the elements as r, d, n, and m as found recited in claims. What does applicant mean the element r, d, n, and m in the formula (1)? However, in the specification (Pub. No.: US 2025/0251335) with paragraphs [0110]-[0127] does NOT show clearly these elements r, d, n, and m to perform the claimed invention. Classification is required.
Regarding claims 18 and 29; the following formula (2) in line 4 is not clear, the claims provide for the elements as c as found recited in claims. What does applicant mean the element c in the formula (2)? However, in the specification (Pub. No.: US 2025/0251335) with paragraphs [0110]-[0127] does NOT show clearly these element c to perform the claimed invention. Classification is required.
Regarding claims 19 and 30; the following formula (3) in line 8 is not clear, what does applicant mean "a and b" in the formula (3)? However, in the specification (Pub. No.: US 2025/0251335) with paragraphs [0110]-[0127] does NOT show clearly these element “a and b” to perform the claimed invention. Classification is required.
Regarding claims 20 and 31; the following formula (4) in lines 8-9 is not clear, what does applicant mean " r, n and m" in the formula (4)? However, in the specification (Pub. No.: US 2025/0251335) with paragraphs [0110]-[0127] does NOT show clearly these element “r, n, and m” to perform the claimed invention. Classification is required.
Claims, which are dependent from rejected claims inherit the problems of these claims, and are therefore also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 14-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 14, 25, and 33 are rejected because it recites an abstract idea as indicated in bold and underlined below:
an information processing method, apparatus, and system comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon, that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method comprising: executed by a computer, comprising:
calculating parameters including a first parameter that specifies a range of a linear axis, and a second parameter that specifies a lower limit value of a display range;
calculating a coordinate value of optical data using the first parameter and the second parameter; and
displaying a result of a clustering process based on the coordinate value.
STEP 2a: The abstract idea (bold and underlined above) falls in the category of mental processes:
The claims 14, 25, and 33 appear to be directed toward a judicial exception, namely the abstract idea of calculating parameters including a first parameter that specifies a range of a linear axis, and a second parameter that specifies a lower limit value of a display range; calculating a coordinate value of optical data using the first parameter and the second parameter; and displaying a result of a clustering process based on the coordinate value. Such limitations are considered to set forth the abstract idea, because the claims are directed toward an idea in and of itself.
The claims only recite and describe gathering, combining and manipulating data by reciting steps of organizing information through mental process and/or algorithms. The gathering and combining steps merely employ mental process to manipulate existing information to generate additional information in the form of "calculating parameters including a first parameter that specifies a range of a linear axis, and a second parameter that specifies a lower limit value of a display range; calculating a coordinate value of optical data using the first parameter and the second parameter; and displaying a result of a clustering process based on the coordinate value". Therefore, a claim is performing a mental process on a generic computer.
Thus, the claims 14, 25, and 33 are drawn to an abstract idea.
STEP 2b: The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons:
Claims 14, 25, and 33 recite additional elements that includes: the “an information processing apparatus”, “information processing unit”, “computer or processor”, “display unit”, “storage unit”, and “user interface”. The claimed additional elements do not make the claim a practical application because they are performing to recite at a high-level generality and generic computer functions or software routinely used in generic computer components or software in the claim. (They may also be considered as an abstract idea because, in this instance it functions to describe the data.)
The additional elements further include at least one processor and at least one memory, all of which can be implemented as generic computer components which are merely used as tools to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The claimed general purposed “an information processing apparatus”, “information processing unit”, “computer or processor”, “display unit”, “storage unit”, and “user interface” are well-known in the art requirements and do not amount significantly more to the claim. Furthermore, claim doesn't have "significantly more" than the abstract idea because the selective “an information processing apparatus”, “information processing unit”, “computer or processor”, “display unit”, “storage unit”, and “user interface” are a well- understood, routine, conventional computer function as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
There is no particular machine (discounting the generic computer components) applying the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and there Is no real-world transformation in the claim (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)).
The remaining consideration is whether the claim constitutes an improvement to a particular technology (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)) or whether it just generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field-of-use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The claim is generally in the field of calculating parameters including a first parameter that specifies a range of a linear axis, and a second parameter that specifies a lower limit value of a display range; calculating a coordinate value of optical data using the first parameter and the second parameter; and displaying a result of a clustering process based on the coordinate value. However, no evidence is provided to show that a particular technological process is being improved.
The underlying process that is supposed to be improved is not stated in this claim. It is not clear what the purpose of the claim is what is expected to be achieved.
For reasons stated above, it has been determined that claims 14, 25, and 33 are directed to an abstract idea/judicial exception with additional generic computer elements, and the generically recited additional computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea/judicial exception because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea/judicial exception on a computer.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (also known as an "Inventive concept") to the exception. The rationale detailed in the above paragraphs apply mutatis mutandis. Causing, receiving, and determining data are all well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 15-24 and 26-32 are dependent on claims 14 and 25, and includes all the limitations of claims 14 and 25 and include all the limitations of their respective base claims. Therefore, claims 15-24 and 26-32 recite the same abstract idea. The additional limitations recited in claims 15-24 and 26-32 are each functional generic/conventional processing steps performed by computer components comprise data gathering and processing steps which correspond to concepts identified as an abstract idea, or ideas, in the form of a mental process or mathematical formula are similar to those found to be non-patent eligible in, e.g., Alice Corp., FairWarning, and Parker V Flook. Claims 15-24 and 26-32 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, claims 14-33 are drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 14-16, 21-27, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert et al (US 2019/0331587 hereinafter “Robert”).
Regarding claims 14, 25, and 33; Robert discloses an information processing method, apparatus, and system (500 @ figure 5) comprising:
at least one processor (graphic controller 290 @ figure 2 or 500 @ figure 5); and
at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon, that, when executed by the at least one processor (graphic controller 290 @ figure 2 or 500 @ figure 5), cause the at least one processor to perform a method comprising: executed by a computer (paragraphs [0115] and [0238]: e.g., a processor comprising memory operably coupled to the processor wherein the memory includes instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: generate a data plot of measurements of the detected light, such that the data plot includes one or more regions each having a population of particles… The program code may be executed by a specifically programmed graphics processor, which may include one or more processors, such as one or more digital signal processors (DSPs), configurable microprocessors, an application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), field programmable logic arrays (FPGAs), or other equivalent integrated or discrete logic circuitry), comprising:
calculating parameters including a first parameter that specifies a range of a linear axis (paragraph [0069]: e.g., FIG. 3 depicts a data plot according to certain embodiments having 9 areas where a particle population may be present. As such, algorithmic transformation identified may be a two-part algorithmic transformation for each axis (i.e., linear or logarithmic along the x-axis and y-axis)), and a second parameter that specifies a lower limit value of a display range (paragraphs [0068] and [0136]: e.g., systems include a processor with memory operably coupled to the processor such that the memory includes instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to determine the boundaries of each region in the data plot. In some instances, to determine the boundary of a region of the data plot, the subject systems are configured to calculate a set of vertices that form the boundary for each region in the data plot by determining the minimum value and maximum value along each axis of the data plot for each vertex. In these embodiments, the minimum value along the x-axis and the minimum value along the y-axis as well as the maximum value along the x-axis and the maximum value along the y-axis are determined by the system for each vertex);
calculating a coordinate value of optical data (abstract: e.g., detecting light from particles in a flow stream, generating a data plot of measurements of the detected light, where the data plot includes one or more regions each having a population of particles, calculating a set of vertices that form a boundary for each region in the data plot, identifying a type of algorithmic transformation associated with each vertex in the set of vertices, generating a bitmap of each region of particles such that the bitmap of each region includes a set of vertices that correspond to the vertices of each region in the data plot and identifying an algorithmic transformation for applying to each vertex in the bitmap of each region) using the first parameter and the second parameter (figures 3 and 4A-4B and paragraphs [0068]-[0069], [0077], and [0136]); and
displaying a result of a clustering process (paragraph [0007] and [0155]: e.g., populations are recognized as clusters in the data. Conversely, each data cluster generally is interpreted as corresponding to a population of a particular type of cell or particle, although clusters that correspond to noise or background typically also are observed. A cluster may be defined in a subset of the dimensions, e.g., with respect to a subset of the measured parameters, which corresponds to populations that differ in only a subset of the measured parameters) based on the coordinate value. See figures 1-7
Regarding claims 15 and 26; Robert discloses displaying the result of the clustering process (paragraphs [0007] and [0155]) based on the coordinate value comprises displaying the result of the clustering process on a display having at least two axes including the linear axis and an algorithmic axis (paragraph [0069]: e.g., algorithmic transformation identified may be a two-part algorithmic transformation for each axis (i.e., linear or logarithmic along the x-axis and y-axis).).
Regarding claims 16 and 27; Robert discloses further comprising calculating a third parameter that specifies an upper limit of the display range (paragraph [0014]: e.g., calculating a set of vertices that form the boundary for each region of particle population in the data plot includes determining the minimum (lower) value and maximum (upper) value along each axis of the data plot for each vertex. For example, the minimum value and maximum value along the x-axis and y-axis of the data plot is determined for each vertex).
Regarding claims 21 and 32; Robert discloses further comprising receiving an instruction of a user (290, 206, 208, 210 @ figure 2 and paragraphs [0178]-[0179]: e.g., an initial plot may render values in the x and y dimensions using a logarithmic scale. A user may activate a control element on the interface to change the scaling of the values), wherein the calculating parameters is performed based on the instruction of the user (figures 2, 5, and paragraphs [0178]-[0179] and [0186]).
Regarding claim 22; Robert discloses the calculating is performed on a basis of optical data received from a storage device (204 @ figure 2) on a basis of the instruction from the user (206, 208, 210, 290 @ figure 2).
Regarding claim 23; Robert discloses further comprising generating a graph (graph controller 290 @ figures 2-3 and 4A-4B and paragraphs [0171] and [0174]) illustrating the optical data on the display range (paragraph [0155]: e.g., as used herein, a “population”, or “subpopulation” of particles, such as cells or other particles, generally refers to a group of particles that possess optical properties with respect to one or more measured parameters such that measured parameter data form a cluster in the data space) using a display method specified on a basis of at least one of the parameters.
Regarding claim 24; Robert discloses further comprising storing the graph in a storage device (204 @ figure 2 and paragraph [0173]: e.g., The storage device 204 may also be configured to receive and store flow cytometric event data from the graphics controller 290. The storage device 204 may be further configured to allow retrieval of flow cytometric events and flow cytometric event data by the graphics controller 290).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 and 28-31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17-20 and 28-31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Vacca (US 2016/0103056) discloses FIGS. 12(a) and 12(b) display curves plotted on a semilog scale of the natural (or, alternatively, the base-10) logarithm axis of measured intensity vs. the linear axis of time.
2) Suzuki et al (US 2014/0294281) discloses a display unit configured to produce the three-dimensional image based on the data representative of the three-dimensional image, and an input unit configured to provide data representative of at least one of a movement and a position of the at least one plane.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SN/
July 10, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights